Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 – Show cause notices were issued to the appellants-teachers alleging that they did not fulfil the eligibility criterion of having secured a minimum of 45% marks in their intermediate examination (Class XII) and that their graduation certificates were not valid – Appellants replied that being members of the ST category, they were required to secure only 40% marks which they did and were thus, eligibile – However, the respondents terminated the appellants’ services by computing their marks after excluding the marks secured in the vocational subject and stated that they had secured less than 40% marks and that their certificates of graduation were also not proper – Termination orders set aside by Single Judge – Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by the respondents – Interference with: Held: 1.1 The degrees awarded to the appellants prior to 26.02.2015 have been treated to be valid by the Government of Jharkhand by way of a policy decision – Further, termination orders are unsustainable and vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, set aside – Appellants successfully defended the charge against them but the respondents found them guilty of a different charge in respect whereof they were not put to notice – In such a case, the finding of guilt which is at variance with the original charge without proper opportunity to respond offends due process and renders any order or action unsustainable. [Paras 10, 32, 33, 38]
1.2 Appellants, in their replies to the show cause notices categorically demonstrated that they were not required to secure 45% marks in their intermediate examination – They were required to secure more than 40% marks in the intermediate examination, which they did secure – However, the respondents terminated the appellants’ services by computing their marks after excluding the marks secured in the vocational subject without affording the appellants notice or an opportunity to contest such exclusion –The allegation that the appellants had failed to secure 40% marks (after exclusion of marks secured in the vocational subject) in the intermediate examination did not even figure as an allegation in the show cause notices – Therefore, findings were returned by the respondents which were at variance with the allegations levelled in the show cause notices. [Paras 32, 36]
1.3 Appellants having successfully defended the allegations, the respondents were precluded in law from proceeding with such notices – In the absence of fresh show cause notices specifically requiring the appellants to explain why the marks secured in the vocational subject should not be taken into account for determining their overall percentage, the appellants were denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing – Moreover, the procedure in r.21 is only to be used for the purpose of preparation of merit list and r.4 does not provide for exclusion of marks secured in the vocational subject – Judgments of the Division Bench set aside. [Paras 32, 38]
1.4 Appellants to be treated to have been in continuous service from the date(s) of their original appointment, as if their services were never terminated – Entitled to service benefits like arrears of pay in full and seniority counted from the dates of initial appointment – However, for the purpose of meeting the experience criterion for promotion, the period not spent on duty will not be counted. [Para 39]
1.5 The other appellant (since deceased) shall be deemed to have died-in-harness and if there be a scheme for compassionate employment, his heirs may apply thereunder. [Para 40] Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 – rr.4, 21 – Whether r.21 will bar/override the method provided in the marksheet:
Held: 1.1 No reason as to why the method of calculation of the percentage, as provided on the reverse of the marksheet of the appellants, should not be applied for the purpose of calculation of their marks – Marks secured in the vocational subject is a way for a candidate to improve his/her overall percentage of marks – A vocational subject, though optional, would place an additional burden on an examinee which he/she shoulders in the fervent hope of improving his/her overall percentage – In the absence of a bar or an alternate method provided by any law, the method provided on the marksheet has to be followed – Therefore, the onus of proof shifted to the respondents to show that calculation as per the marksheet is not warranted. [Paras 23, 24]
1.2 The heading of r.21 makes it clear that the procedure in this rule applies only at the time of preparing the “Merit List” – r.21 is no way concerned with providing a mechanism for deciding whether a candidate is eligible or not – That consideration falls within the exclusive domain of r.4, which provides for an eligibility criteria for the purpose of appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test. [Para 26]
1.3 A combined reading of both the rules, therefore, is that the eligibility of a candidate for appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test is to be decided in accordance with r.4 and Merit list (for the purposes of appointment) is to be prepared in accordance with r.21 – Thus, the respondents erred in applying r.21 for the purpose of deciding whether the appellants fulfilled the eligibility criteria – Division Bench also committed the same error. [Para 28]
1.4 In accordance with r.4, which does not provide for exclusion of marks secured in the vocational subject, and r.21 not being applicable for determining the eligibility of a candidate, the only method for calculation of the marks is the one which is provided on the reverse side of the marksheet of the appellants, according to which the appellants have secured more that 40% marks – Therefore, the appellants were eligible to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination. [Para 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.